Peter Maydell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21 April 2014 15:39, Juan Quintela <[email protected]> wrote: >> - version_mimium_id_old patches splitted as for Peter requests in: >> * usb >> * x86 >> * arm >> * ppc >> * rest >> >> I splitted basically on that order, so, if a device appears on more >> than one architecture, 1st one on the list wins > > Thanks. How about you get those patches reviewed and in first, > rather than including them in a 124 patch series which touches > 238 files? I just don't think this is reviewable at all, even at a > very high level (I can't tell from diffstat if you're touching all > these files just for the removal of the version-minimum-id-old > field or for some other thing too, for instance.) I think you need > to divide this up into different series and send them through > the review-and-commit pipeline separately.
The others touch that very same files. Patches are easy to review in sequence, any of them is very simple, and the few ones that are long (minimum_version_id_old) review is just looking that the previous line is minimum_version_id = <same number>. IMHO, this is the kind of patches that should be introduced at the very beggining of a release for that very reason. There is no other way that I can think of changing things all over the tree. Later, Juan.
